Lebrun v. Baker Hughes Inc et al

Filing 123

ORDER: As no new arguments have been presented which alter the reasoning or the conclusion reached by the Court on Plaintiff's 59 Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's 112 Motion for New Trial must be denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 10/16/2017. (crt,Chicola, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Lebrun

Civil Action No. 15-01828

versus

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

Baker Hughes Inc et al

By Consent of the Parties

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion For New Trial On Issue of Sieracki Seaman
Status Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 59 filed by Plaintiff, Jonathan Lebrun, [Rec. Doc. 112]
and Defendant’s, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.’s, Memorandum in
Opposition [Rec. Doc. 114]. The record provides that Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment moving the Court to find that he was a Sieracki Seaman while
employed as a mud sampler on the drill ship DEEPWATER CHAMPION. R. 59. The
Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on August 18, 2017, holding
that (1) Plaintiff did not meet the standard required to be classified as a Sieracki
Seaman; and (2) the DEEPWATER CHAMPION was not located in foreign waters
during the period Plaintiff worked on board.
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues application of Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The Fifth Circuit has held that a motion which challenges a prior
judgment on its merits will be treated as either a motion “to alter or amend” under
Rule 59(e) or a motion for “relief from judgment” under Rule 60(b), depending on

when the motion was filed. If the motion was filed within twenty-eight days of the
entry of judgment, it will be considered under Rule 59(e); if filed after that time
period, it will be treated as a motion under Rule 60(b). See Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc.,
933 F,2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991), citing Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works,
Inc., 910 F.2d 167,173 (5th Cir. 1990) (overruled on other grounds). As Plaintiff filed
his motion for reconsideration within 28 days of entry of judgment, the motion is
properly considered under Rule 59(e).
Under established Fifth Circuit jurisprudence,
A Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.”
This Court has held that such a motion is not the proper vehicle for
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been
offered or raised before the entry of judgment. Rather, Rule 59(e)
“serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy
that should be used sparingly.
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (emphasis
supplied). In Lavespere, the court recognized while a district court has considerable
discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for
reconsideration, such discretion is not limitless. 910 F.2d at 174. The Fifth Circuit has
identified two important judicial imperatives relating to such a motion; 1) the need
to bring litigation to an end; and 2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of
all the facts, noting “[t]he task for the district court is to strike the proper balance

2

between these competing interests.” Id. The Fifth Circuit has further held “an
unexcused failure to present evidence available at the time of summary judgment
provides a valid basis for denying a subsequent motion for reconsideration.” See
Templet at 478.
Here, Plaintiff has presented no newly discovered evidence, has not
shown that the Court committed clear error in its ruling, and has not argued
an intervening change in the controlling law. Rather, review of the record
shows Plaintiff's arguments in support of his motion to amend the judgment are
essentially identical to the arguments raised in his motion for summary judgment. The
Court considered all arguments presented by Plaintiff in support of his motion for
summary judgment prior to concluding Plaintiff's Sierachi Seaman status claim
should be denied.
Accordingly, as no new arguments have been presented which alter the
reasoning or the conclusion reached by the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment, R. 59, Plaintiff’s Motion For New Trial must be denied.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 16th day of October, 2017.